tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post3285197628333655500..comments2018-03-18T05:39:12.325-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: Source Citation vs. ProofJames Tannerhttps://plus.google.com/111292106004869462088noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-36730929282069265682012-03-12T14:09:57.109-07:002012-03-12T14:09:57.109-07:00I agree completely with this post. The map is not ...I agree completely with this post. The map is not the territory. <br /><br />The truth is the truth no matter how, or even whether, it&#39;s documented. Aren&#39;t genealogists supposed to have—I guess you could call it an educated sense of certainty, like doctors? <br /><br />I think it&#39;s crucial to prioritize. Neglecting other ancestors in order to pursue a technically unproven one isn&#39;t the best use of precious time.JG in MDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16029403745201344240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-2969318744812053042012-03-09T09:37:11.674-07:002012-03-09T09:37:11.674-07:00James,
Isn&#39;t it possible that the mass of sec...James,<br /><br />Isn&#39;t it possible that the mass of secondary information tying Sidney to John traces back to the same erroneous source? I understand your point, we can get caught in obsessing. But I would argue that if our research hasn&#39;t yet met the Genealogical Proof Standard then we aren&#39;t obsessing--we&#39;re simply striving for excellence.<br /><br />When you stated, &quot;Technically, the link is unproven, but from a basically practical purpose that lack of proof is immaterial to the conclusion that Sidney Tanner was John Tanner&#39;s son,&quot; it&#39;s hard to know if you are saying there isn&#39;t any direct evidence of a link, or if there isn&#39;t any evidence at all. If you&#39;re convinced of the relationship I would imagine there is a body of indirect evidence--beyond the secondary sources--that support that conclusion, correct?<br /><br />I enjoy your blog and you always make excellent points. I am hoping to understand your thoughts on accepting secondary sources as truth a little better.Christy Filleruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00551535543039710938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-74808721177357181632012-03-08T21:25:55.842-07:002012-03-08T21:25:55.842-07:00Too funny. Source citation vs. Proof. There is no ...Too funny. Source citation vs. Proof. There is no versus. Proof without citation does not exist. But proof is not the GPS. The GPS is the benchmark by which we judge proof. Citation does not evaluate the quality of record, the researcher does. However the researcher is evaluated on the basis of their citations and their analysis. You see it is the analysis part of the conversation that is missing. I would suggest that reading the first two chapters of Mills book would go a long way in helping you to better understand that citation and proof can not exist by themselves or in isolation. By the by there is no such thing as a fact that is beyond dispute. Just fact that have not yet been disproved.Craig R. Scott, CGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17270765050242619225noreply@blogger.com